4.5 Article

Measurements of the flow in the near wake of a rough, semi permeable prolate spheroid at intermediate Reynolds numbers

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MECHANICS B-FLUIDS
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 159-175

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.euromechflu.2015.12.009

关键词

Bluff body; Prolate spheroid; Ovulate pine cone; Wake flow dynamics; Vortex shedding; Particle Image Velocimetry

资金

  1. Edmund J. Safra Philanthropic Foundation
  2. Wolfson Family Charitable Trust
  3. Technion Fund for Promotion of Research
  4. Israel Science Foundation [915/10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Time resolved, PIV measurements were performed to investigate the flow field dynamics around an ovulate pine cone (P. halepensis) mounted in a windtunnel at Reynolds numbers ranging from Re-D = 246 to 955, based on the equatorial diameter. Scale/bract complexes arranged in helices characterized the cone's surface morphology. The cone could be represented by a low aspect ratio, prolate spheroid (L/D approximate to 2) and time averaged flow patterns were similar as observed around other bluff bodies such as cylinders and spheres. However, the recirculation zone was almost twice as long than that of a sphere at similar Re-D. At all Re-D, vortex shedding occurred, but while shedding was highly organized at Re-D = 246, it became less so at higher Re-D. Strouhal numbers increased from 0.13 (Re-D = 246) to similar to 0.185 at Re-D = 955. At the highest Re-D, power spectra of transverse velocity displayed two frequency peaks with corresponding Strouhal numbers up to 0.36. These double-branch frequencies are similar as those observed in the wake of a sphere but occur here at lower Rep. Furthermore, at Re-D >= 526, small-scale vortices were created through break-up of the large-scale vortices that were generated in the high shear layer. Some were convected back upstream towards the cone where they interacted with the upstream vortices in the shear layer extending from the cone. (C) 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据